Science and Religion

Science and Nonbelief

by Taner Edis

Average Rating:

"Taner Edis has written a marvelously critical overview of where naturalism and supernaturalism collide. Books in this vein tend to be overly biased in favor of one side or the other, but Edis somehow maintains an edge of skepticism toward even his own viewpoints. Strength rests in this book where it points out the incomplete and weak areas of a fully naturalistic account of existence. The tactic utilized seemed to be very effective in that, generally speaking, he shows why naturalistic accounts are the best explanations, why their supernaturalistic rivals are woefully inadequate or just plain wrong, and then he points out the potential weak spots for those who hold to naturalism. I found this approach especially refreshing seeing that this method invites critical reflection on the issues at hand - something that the epistemological methodology of supernatural belief often lacks.

Chapter 1: Science, Philosophy, and Religious Doubt

This chapter is a very good overview for framing the thesis of the book. It contains the historical background of science, philosophy, and doubt and traces their beginnings in ancient Greece, their revitalization during the Enlightenment and how this trend is (and isn't) being carried into today. This chapter also gives a good introduction to the meta-representational differences between naturalism and supernaturalism.

Chapter 2: An Accidental World

Providing a primer on our current and mature physical picture of the universe, Edis explains why "commonsense" notions of believing in a Designer-god such as the "anthropic principle" are inadequate when one has a good understanding of physics. I especially enjoyed the exposition of "symmetry breaking" and how this very simple principle accounts for much of the "design" often pointed to.

Chapter 3: Darwinian Creativity

Makes the case for evolution and its centrality to understanding biology. Edis tackles a wide range of topics ranging from entropy to the ways in which evolution has been reconciled with religious beliefs, from pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design to the propagandist-driven American and Islamic creationism.

Chapter 4: Minds without Souls

Utilizing neuroscience, this chapter explains why the dualistic notion of a soul or non-material essence is superfluous to a complete understanding of the human mind.

Chapter 5: The Fringes of Science

Following in the grand tradition of debunking nonsense, UFO's, psychics, parapsychology, and miracles are judiciously dealt with.

Chapter 6: Explaining Religion

Drawing from the burgeoning and related fields of cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, Edis successfully shows why a naturalistic account of religious psychological phenomena is effective, even if incomplete. It is also correctly pointed out that a cognitive-scientific account of non-belief is needed to complement our understanding.

Chapter 7: Morality and Politics

Edis takes the exceptionally large issues covered in the book and expounds on their political environment and outlines some of the most common methods and tacts utilized. Covered here as well is explaining both the strengths and weaknesses of morality without a Heavenly Watcher, contrasted with the strengths and weaknesses of traditional transcendental schemes. The author concludes on a stark note, one that I won't spoil for the potential reader.

These annotations on the chapters do not and cannot do the volume justice. Edis weaves the thematic content of each chapter into a very coherent whole of a very readable and intellectually rich book. "

Publisher: Prometheus Books | More reviews: amazon.com

Did Man Create God?: Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace With Your Thinking Brain?

by David E. Comings

Average Rating:

"Religion plays a huge part of everyone's lives, irregardless of if they attend a church, synagogue, or mosque - but is it interfering too much with the sensible thought of the world? "Did Man Create God?: Is Your Spiritual Brain At Peace with Your Thinking Brain?" believes so, but keeps a spiritual stance throughout its questioning of the world's faith - stating that spirituality is a hard wired part of the brain of humanity. An objective look at religion as a whole, it tackles all concerns and issues with religion such as fundamentalism and barriers to social progress. "Did Man Create God?: Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?" is highly recommended for community library collections dedicated to religious studies of all sorts."

Publisher: Hope Pr | More reviews: amazon.com

Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview

by Albert M. Wolters

Average Rating:

"Wolters has done a terrific job of explaining how Christians are to relate to all of the created world in this brief treatise. In a time in which Christians in America lack a clear vision of their place in and with society, many have succumbed to the belief that that some areas are less important and less holy than others. Having forced life into a dichotomy of "secular" and "sacred" activities, Christendom has lost its sense of the inherent value and goodness of life outside the walls of their Sunday School classroom. With more and more Christians abandoning their posts and ceasing to believe in the inherent goodness of culture and society, it is no wonder that the machinery of soceity has come to a grinding and nauseating halt. The air is ripe for believers to rediscover the truth about God's love and plans for the redemption of all of life and to realize that the myth of the sacred/secular dichotomy is nothing more than the ancient, but everpresent, heresy of Gnosticism which has always plaugud the church (and no doubt always will til Christ comes back). Creation is intrinsically a good thing. Sin entered the world and like a parasite attached itself to all things. But God, in His everlasting and everreaching mercy, has brought about a plan of redemption, not only to individual persons, but also to the world as a whole, through the death and resurrection of His Son. This short, yet masterfully written book (98 pages), will impart to Christians an intoxicating vision and direction about the world at large that is much needed in the Church today. _Creation Regained_ offers a comforting and encouraging word, reassuring the troubled Christian with the implications of redemption and how they must drive our interaction with culture. God desires the restoration of all of life, and Christians are his salt and light to accomplish that purpose. A must read for all who seriously struggle to understand their place in the world."

Publisher: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company | More reviews: amazon.com

Catholic Bioethics and Gift of Human Life

by William E. May

Publisher: Our Sunday Visitor | More reviews: amazon.com

Religion and Science

by Bertrand Russell

Average Rating:

"Some people say that you must not read what is contrary to your religious beliefs. I advise those people not to read this book, as they will see their beliefs carefully explained, discussed and torn down by Russell. He does not mock the opposite points of view, but he explains them in a very clear fashion and then shows sound arguments to prove they are wrong. Even if you do not agree with his position, you will find the discussion enlightening. Recommended!"

Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA | More reviews: amazon.com

Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute)

by Michael Behe

Average Rating:

"I have to give this book 5 stars to counter-balance the two reviews that slam this book. It is obvious that neither reviewer has read this book, in part or in total. Intelligent Design is not creation science. It accepts evolution (i.e., common descent), gradual change over time, and natural selection as a fine-tuning mechanicism of life. It merely suggests that the formation of life is guided by intelligence - the exact question of how that intelligence performed its work, or who that intelligence is, is left open. (It could be anything from aliens to Zeus.) Intelligent Design has caused Darwinian Fundamentalists to react with alarm because Darwinism is the central facet of their world view. Their objections are more philosophical than scientific (I've yet to read ONE negative review of an ID book that contains any science whatsoever). Darwinists have been the Grand Inquisitors of academia and are crushing real science. While Physics, Astronomy, Genetics, and other fields are literally taking quantum leaps into the future, evolutionary Biology has barely advanced past the early 1900s thanks to the the Fundamentalists' insistence that all evidence be construed, however obliquely, to support the notion that natural selection and random mutation can account for all life on earth. Read about ID and make up your mind. Don't listen to Fundamentalists like Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins who are long on rhetoric and short on science."

Publisher: Ignatius Press | More reviews: amazon.com

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction

by Eugenie C. Scott

Average Rating:

"Eugenie Scott explains the nature of science: Science is guided by natural law, is explanatory by reference to law, is testable against the empirical world, is always tentative and subject to revision and is falsifiable. Creationism is an act of faith without testing and fails the nature of science.What many do not understand is that there is 1) no general all-purpose scientific method, 2) science is not only about experiments, 3) science is not invulnerable to fraud, 4) science can never provide final or absolute truth and 5) there are questions that science cannot answer. Science never proposes an irrefutable hypothesis such as "God did it!" Science accepts what cannot otherwise be disproven - and keeps testing, always looking for the defects and failures.Following Garrett Hardin's method of taking the opposite view, Ms. Scott makes a concerted effort on behalf of "Intelligent Design" and creationism proponents. The ID folks refuse to allow Ms. Scott to quote from their published materials, contrary to the norms of open and democractic discussion.The nature of science is that science is an act of nonfaith and is always subject to further testing. Science can never rely on the supernatural. There is no conflict between science and creationism. There is only a conflict in the minds of those who only rely upon the supernatural and faith. Ms. Scott presents a credible, easy to read and understand discussion. This book belongs in the hands of every K-12 and university educator, minister, school board and the general public."

Publisher: University of California Press | More reviews: amazon.com

Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars

by Hugh Ross

Average Rating:

""Creation as Science" actually contains, in a 25-page side-by-side table, four models of creation: the Reasons to Believe (RTB) Model, Naturalism, Young-Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution, with a total of 89 predictive tests for each model.

In addition to the models, the 225 pages of preceding text contain a lot of worthwhile material, including a list of ten parallels between the "evolution" of the universe and Scripture (p. 75) and an extensive description of the careful, many-faceted preparations God orchestrated over a period of 13.7 billion years to prepare planet Earth for us humans.

While he may or may not have gotten everything right, Hugh Ross seems to have made a good first pass that should stir up much discussion and, hopefully, progress."

Publisher: Navpress Publishing Group | More reviews: amazon.com

Chemistry of the Blood

by M.R. DeHaan

Average Rating:

"This is possibly the most eye (soul) opening book I've ever read. Dr. DeHaan had such a marvelous way of explaining some of those points so many of us get hung up on. If you have ever questioned why blood was necessary to cleanse us of our sins, READ THIS BOOK! If you want a deeper understanding of prayer, READ THIS BOOK! This is a book you can go back to over and over again. I also recommend Portraits of Christ in Genesis by Dr. DeHaan"

Publisher: Zondervan | More reviews: amazon.com

I Don't Believe in Atheists

by Chris Hedges

Average Rating:

"I might not be the typical reviewer of this book. I am an atheist, but one who is as annoyed as Hedges over the excesses and irresponsibilities of the more dogmatic of "public figure" atheists. But, wait! I gave this book two stars. Why would I give a book whose message I essentially agree with 2 stars?

Well, for starters, I don't agree with much in this book; suprising, because I thought that I would. Of the scores of things Hedges could have challengd these atheists - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens - on, Hedges manages to miss most of them and add some that are quite illigitimate. Had I written this book, I would have taken the three authors to task on a few things:

a.) their simplistic and baffling view that not only religious extremists, but moderates, are to be condemmed. (Isn't religion a tool? Just as people can do bad with it, so they can do good, depending on their motive?)

b.) these authors occasional faith-driven zeal, that given enough time, sceince will explain all of the things it has tried and failed to explain (like morality, even though science deals with 'is' rather than 'ought' questions. (And don't get me started on the idea of 'memes' as opposed to the older, more sensical, idea of 'ideas.')

c.) These authors' very frequent exhibitions of the type of fanatical extremism and dogmatism they rightly point out as a flaw of their opponents (fundamentalists).

The only of these Hedges hits on is the third. Hedges is not even primarily against atheism. He is, rather, against dogmatism and fanasticism, which he rightly sees exhibited in spades amongst these new 'public figure' atheists.

But in his zeal - and judging by the redundancy, this was a book written in great haste without the benefit of editing or critical thought - he attributes many things to these authors that they, in fact, never actually say. This, of course, renders his books quite superfluous, irrelevant, and unimportant.

His main argument against these atheists is that they believe in moral progress in a utopian sense. Get rid of religion, they are alleged to say, and the world can be a utopia. Hedges says this of them several times. As one whose read all of the authors to which he refers, I was confused, because I don't remember any of them saying this. At least, I figured, he will quote them on this at some point. He never did.

He suggests that these authors do not believe in any idea resembling original sin; that humans have both a good AND A DARK narure. That is funny in a naive sort of way, because if Hedges had done homework, he would have easily known that the whole idea of evolutionary psychology (to which all of our authors subscribe)is ALWAYS lambasted for recognizing that we - evolutionary creatures - have inherited our predecessors' moral virtues and shortcomings. (Hedges should have remembered the uproar at Dawkins' book 'The Selfish Gene!').

For their parts, Harris and Hitchens are also quite clear in their books on the idea that moral perfection and utopianism should not be seriously taken. Hitchens, after all, is a raging fan of the anti-utopian George Orwell, who makes several moralistic appearances in Hitchens' book. And Harris says repeatedly that once religion is out, humans will just as easily fight over other things; the only difference will be that hopefully those things are more solvable and tractible than are beliefs that God gave this group or that group the holy land. (Religion IS in fact a good, but not the only, conversation stopper.)

Quite simply, Hedges' attribution and scolding of atheists that believe in unbounded moral perfectability is arguing against a ghost. Those atheists died out with Stalin. And as dead as they are, so dead is Hedges 'argument.'

Beyond this, Hedges also condems Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens - quite oddly - for the belief that humans can morally impove AT ALL!! Hedges is a pessimist in the fine tradition of those depressed social thinkers like Reinhold Neibuhr and Soren Kierkegaard. Like them, he reminds us that humans have natures and sometimes, those natures are selfish and devious. As such, we should never try to overcome any part of ourselves; we should simply accept the fact that sin exists.

Of course, anyone whose ever read Reinhold Neibuhr - I have, even as an atheist - knows that he never, ever was that pessimilstic. He simply suggested that moral PERFECTIBILITY was a chimera. Try as we might, there is always going to be an ideal that we fall short of, but that this should not keep us from trying for it and striving for it.

Hedges on the other hand reminds us again and again that "we live in a constant state of war," and that it is no good to try and change it. So how dare the atheists suggest that if we try hard, we may be able to gradually move beyond some of the moral quandaries of the day. Of course, we have in the past. At least in Western countries: slavery is outlawed women are no longer property of men; feudalism is gone; monarchy and dictatorship is more and more rare and looked down on; the first bills of rights have appeared on the planet. One wonders: if Hedges were writing 300 years ago, would any of this have happened? Or would he simply have reminded us of the evil that comes when we try to do better than we have in the past. And how dare the wicked atheists for suggesting that progress is a goal to strive for!!

I write this lengthy review, quite simply, to give prospective readers an idea of how poor this book is both in intellectual quality and message. If one wants to argue against the 'new atheism' for things like their dogmatism, and morally simplistic judgments against all things with the hint of religion, then do that! (I will welcome it myself!) But to suggest that the new atheism is evil because of a belief in moral perfection that none of its authors write about, and for the audacity to claim that humans can be decent if they try hard - what? Who? "

Publisher: Free Press | More reviews: amazon.com